Poster "stunned" by Mary's Immaculate Conception

[Contarini]

Contarini,

Some of your confusion may be because many protestant churches don’t really even teach a formal “original sin” doctrine.

Well, actually what I was taught “original sin” meant (and what I believe to be true) isn’t the same thing as the Augustinian view (I don’t believe one can be damned for original sin alone).

I don’t know what rr means by “conceived without original sin.” I’m hoping he will tell us.

Edwin

 

[Eireann]

To respond to Orion’s questions, do I believe that Mary was conceived without original sin? At this point, no. Jesus was conceived through the action of the Holy Spirit, yes. And, yes, Jesus is fully human and fully God.

Here, this might help, but then again it might not.

 

[Alexius]

I’ve never understood the thinking behind this question, since Christ died, and He was certainly born without original sin.

Yes, Christ died, but not of a natural death, rather he was put to death in an unnatural way. The Holy Virgin died in a natural manner and at an old age. I think it is a relavent question since it comes from my heart and I want to hear the reasoning behind it. To make impersonal comments regarding the nature of this question is rather repulsive . I sincerely need help as this is tied to whether the Immaculate Conception is valid or not.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[rr1213]

Are you surprised that the Orthodox Catholic Church also teaches that the Theotokos is/was sinless (just not that she was immaculately conceived by the Latin doctrine of original sin)?

No, not surprised at this time.

Also, why do you object to the sinlessness of the Virgin and her Assumption into Heaven, as these are universally proclaimed?

To state the obvious, these doctrines are not accepted by by Protestants.

 

[rr1213]

How about this from an Anglican.

Is it inconceivable that God preserved Mary from sin (an act of divine mercy) to specially prepare her is vessel of the Incarnation of God almighty? In other words God applied the merits of the Cross to Mary the moment he made her, he also gifted her with total sanctification instantly. Completely unusual? Absolutely. But so was her role in salvation history. Just think of it like this, Justification and Sanctification through Christ alone, was given to her from conception rather than through process. She just went through the redemption process miraculously different. But she still needed a savior and she still has one he just circumvented his normal means of freeing children of Adam by acting outside of time and space regarding Mary be preserving her from the very effects of the Fall. Hey, Enoch never died!

Maybe this is easier for me because of my former Calvinist current Augustinian view of divine sovereignty and election?

It is not inconceivable. God is Sovereign and can do whatever he wishes. The issue is whether He did.

 

[Atreyu]

Yes, Christ died, but not of a natural death, rather he was put to death in an unnatural way. The Holy Virgin died in a natural manner and at an old age. I think it is a relavent question since it comes from my heart and I want to hear the reasoning behind it. To make impersonal comments regarding the nature of this question is rather repulsive . I sincerely need help as this is tied to whether the Immaculate Conception is valid or not.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

How do you know that Mary died in a natural manner? How do you know that she died at all, and was not Assumed into heaven without dying?

 

[Alexius]

Sorry Orthodoxy a Hebrew thought don’t mix. The Orthodox position on original sin is slightly too Hellenistic and does not engage the Hebrewness of the scriptures at all. St. Augustine is fully in line with St. Paul on the Fall and original sin. The Orthodox suffer from there disregarding Hebrew categories completely on this matter.

Were not the Jews of Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon Hellenistic? I have read several Jewish Commentaries that explicitly deny Augustine’s teaching of original sin and affirm a position in line with Orthodoxy and the earliest fathers of the Church. There is no “stain” of sin mentioned in these (although I’ll qualify Tertullian’s legal thinking, but then again, he denied the ever-Virginity of the Theotokos !)

By the way, Augustine is far from Hebrew thought and struggles with his early Manichaen thought…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[rr1213]

Since you believe Jesus is fully human and He was “concieved”, Mary is fully his mother in the biological sense. Thus, if Mary was not without sin, you believe that part of Jesus’ humanity was stained by Mary’s sin. How does that reconcile with your belief that Jesus was fully God and without sin?

The argument of necessity does not work. If God is capable of seeing that Mary is conceived without sin and preserving her from sin (which, of course, he is), then God is equally capable of conceiving Christ’s humanity without sin within a Mary who has sinned.

But more importantly, do you think it more reasonable that God would select as His mate a sinner and imperfect vessel to bear Himself or select one without sin and a perfect vessel to bear Himself?

*** I don’t think his “mate” is the correct concept. God does not mate. Further, God created human beings with the capacity to choose sin. God did not make humans sin, but he gave us the ability to eat of the tree of knowledge. So, who is to say that He would not be born from a woman who had sinned? (I am not saying that Mary was a great sinner by any means…as I said before, Mary is a Saint and blessed through all ages…Catholics tend to be sensitive on this, so please bear in mind that no offense is intended). Also, Christ took on the sins of the world to redeem us…and knew that He would do so prior to the incarnation. So, yes, it is certainly conceivable that Jesus would be born to a women who was not perfect.***

I understand why it might be easier to not think about this (as you admit). But to not think about it and grasp it as a great mystery, denies one the opportunity to have a greater grasp of the mystery of the incarnation itself, the magnitude of the gift God made by sending His Son, and ultimately the Sacrifice of His Passion and Death.

If the Catholic teaching on this is right, then you would be absolutely correct.

RR, your posts are always filled with sincerity of purpose, interest, and probing. This yearning in you is a great blessing and I respectfully ask you to probe this “potential” mystery with an openness of heart and mind in prayer. I’m confident that it will illuminate much Truth and bring you closer to Christ (which is the goal of all of us on this journey).

 

[Alexius]

rr1213: Originally Posted by Alexius
Are you surprised that the Orthodox Catholic Church also teaches that the Theotokos is/was sinless (just not that she was immaculately conceived by the Latin doctrine of original sin)?

No, not surprised at this time.

Also, why do you object to the sinlessness of the Virgin and her Assumption into Heaven, as these are universally proclaimed?

To state the obvious, these doctrines are not accepted by by Protestants.

Okay, I already realize the obvious part; I was a Protestant, so I know that that is the underlying issue. I was just curious what it is about these doctrines themselves that makes them difficult to believe…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Mannyfit75]

How do you know that Mary died in a natural manner? How do you know that she died at all, and was not Assumed into heaven without dying?

Atreyu,

Alexius is E. Catholic. Eastern Catholics held the same views as Orthodox Christians. They believe in the Dormation of Mary rather than the assumption. In this tradition, Mary died (fallen asleep), and that later on Jesus took his mother into the heaven.

The Latin Catholic Church is silent whether Mary died prior to her assumption into heaven. It states, “Mary, Immaculate Mother of God ever Virgin, after finishing the course of her life on earth, was taken up in body and soul to heavenly glory.”

There is no mention of her dying, or living. So a Catholic is free to believe that she died prior to her assumption, or direct assumed into heaven without dying.

 

[Zooey]

How about this from an Anglican.

Is it inconceivable that God preserved Mary from sin (an act of divine mercy) to specially prepare her is vessel of the Incarnation of God almighty? In other words God applied the merits of the Cross to Mary the moment he made her, he also gifted her with total sanctification instantly. Completely unusual? Absolutely. But so was her role in salvation history. Just think of it like this, Justification and Sanctification through Christ alone, was given to her from conception rather than through process. She just went through the redemption process miraculously different. But she still needed a savior and she still has one he just circumvented his normal means of freeing children of Adam by acting outside of time and space regarding Mary be preserving her from the very effects of the Fall. Hey, Enoch never died!

Maybe this is easier for me because of my former Calvinist current Augustinian view of divine sovereignty and election?

Works for me…But then, I as a Methodist, tend to come at things from a somewhat Anglican direction myslef.

I’m baffled by this. Your response is unique in my experience. Generally the concept of Mary never having had original sin is far more difficult to accept than the idea that she never wilfully sinned. I tend to believe the latter and to be dubious about the former. Why do you find the idea that she never committed actual sin more difficult than the idea that she never had original sin?

Consider this–if as the Catholic Church teaches Mary was free from original sin from the first moment on, then that makes her the New Eve (indeed, the main basis for the IC in my opinion is the ancient tradition that Mary is in fact the New Eve). If Mary was free from original sin but then sinned later, that would in a sense be a second Fall of humanity. It would be a catastrophic act, hugely different from the sins that most of us commit every day.

With all due respect, I don’t think you’ve thought this through. The proposition that Mary was, in Wesleyan terms, entirely sanctified from the first moment of moral responsibility is a far less radical and disturbing one than the proposition that she was without original sin. And if she was without original sin, then she certainly never abused that God-given innocence to repeat the Fall of our first ancestors.

In Christ,

Edwin

AHA!! (she shouted!!). It’s the Wesleys!! We’re looking at the subject as Entire Sanctification, & so we can see it. All that Holiness training has kicked in. I always did wonder why it was so obvious to me, that Mary could be free of sin, & so hard for other non-Catholic Christians…You just answered it. I was thinking in terms of Wesleyan teaching w/o even realizing it.
(One of the best explanations I have ever heard, of the Immaculate Conception, Mary’s sinlessness, & Perpetual Virginity came from a Free Methodist pastor many, many years ago…Betcha he was going back to Wesley too!)

How do you know that Mary died in a natural manner? How do you know that she died at all, and was not Assumed into heaven without dying?

Personally, I :nope: don’t believe that she did die. I think she was taken up into Heaven without dying…But that’s based on my own personal interpretation of Scripture, & therefore belongs in, I think, another thread.

 

[rr1213]

Being without sin should not be a big shocker. Read this from Catholic Answers:

The notion that God is the only being without sin is quite false–and even Protestants think so. Adam and Eve, before the fall, were free from sin, and they weren’t gods, the serpent’s assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. (One must remember that Mary was not the first immaculate human being, even if she was the first to be conceived immaculately.)

Unfortunately for all of us Adam and Eve did not remain sinless.

The angels in heaven are not gods, but they were created sinless and have remained so ever since.

Lucifer was an angel and tradition holds that a third of these heavenly beings were cast out of heaven into hell because of their rebellion…sin.

The saints in heaven are not gods, although each of them is now completely sinless (Rev. 14:5; 21:27).

They have been completely sanctified, either in the Protestant understanding or through the fires of purgatory if you are Catholic in your faith.

Paul’s statements in Romans chapters 3 and 5 (no one is righteous; no one seeks God; no one does good; all have sinned) should not be taken in a crassly literal and universal sense–if they are, irreconcilable contradictions will arise. Consider Luke 1:6. Common sense tells us whole groups of people are exempt from Paul’s statement that “all have sinned.” Aborted infants cannot sin, nor can young children or severely retarded people. But Paul didn’t mention such obvious exceptions. He was writing to adults in our state of life.

Everyone else, including aborted infants, young children and the mentally incapable are subject to original sin. And, yes, Paul was writing to competent adults, a subset of human beings of whom Mary was certainly a member.

 

[SAHM02]

How do you know that Mary died in a natural manner? How do you know that she died at all, and was not Assumed into heaven without dying?

It is my understanding that the Catholic Doctrine on the Assumption does NOT claim that Mary did not die; however at the same time it does not claim that she did die.

It is my understanding that a Catholic is free to believe that Mary died then was assumed. Or a Catholic is free to believe that Mary never died and at the end she just was assumed into heaven.

[quote=catholic.com]The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, “after the completion of her earthly life” (note the silence regarding her death), “was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven.”
[/quote]

 

[Eden]

rr:

Unfortunately for all of us Adam and Eve did not remain sinless.

***Lucifer was an angel and tradition holds that a third of these heavenly beings were cast out of heaven into hell because of their rebellion…sin. ***

The Mother of God = Adam and his original sin?

The Mother of God = Lucifer and 1/3 of the beings who rejected God?

---

That is stunning!

---

***Why you would compare the Mother of God to demons and the progenitor of the fallen nature of humans is beyond me. The Blessed Mother said “yes” to God in the Scriptures. You have no reason, based on what we learn about her in Scriptures, to imagine that she ever did anything other than say “yes” to Him. ***

 

[rr1213]

I’m baffled by this. Your response is unique in my experience. Generally the concept of Mary never having had original sin is far more difficult to accept than the idea that she never wilfully sinned. I tend to believe the latter and to be dubious about the former. Why do you find the idea that she never committed actual sin more difficult than the idea that she never had original sin?

Consider this–if as the Catholic Church teaches Mary was free from original sin from the first moment on, then that makes her the New Eve (indeed, the main basis for the IC in my opinion is the ancient tradition that Mary is in fact the New Eve). If Mary was free from original sin but then sinned later, that would in a sense be a second Fall of humanity. It would be a catastrophic act, hugely different from the sins that most of us commit every day.

With all due respect, I don’t think you’ve thought this through. The proposition that Mary was, in Wesleyan terms, entirely sanctified from the first moment of moral responsibility is a far less radical and disturbing one than the proposition that she was without original sin. And if she was without original sin, then she certainly never abused that God-given innocence to repeat the Fall of our first ancestors.

In Christ,

Edwin

I will think about what you’ve said here and take your comments under advisement. At this point I don’t believe that Mary was conceived without original sin nor that she lived her life in the total absence of sin. I suppose that I am more bothered by the concept that she was sinless, as opposed to the immaculate conception, because of the example of Scripture where the only human beings other than Christ who were not subject to original sin were Adam and Eve who, quite unfortunately, did sin and caused the fall. Being without original sin, they had the capacity not to choose evil but did. Christ also had the capacity to choose evil but did not. If the IC is true, then Mary also had the capacity but chose not to sin. I find that implausible considering that our only example of a sinless human being is Christ himself.

Why do you doubt the immaculate conception but tend to believe that Mary was without sin? If she was subject to original sin, then her human nature would be corrupted and it would be inconceivable (pun intended) that she would not sin. (I suppose that it would make sense to the Orthodox who have a different concept of original sin than us in the West, but…)

Also, from a practical standpoint, have you ever known a person to be sinless? Of course not, we live in a fallen world. If a sinless woman such as Mary was living in your neighborhood, you would have heard more about it and this miracle would be reflected directly and explicitly in the New Testament (more than just Gabriel’s ambiguous pronouncement).

 

[rr1213]

Also, I would like to thank everyone for their thoughtful and charitable comments in this thread. I very much appreciate people taking the time to think about this with me, whether I ultimately agree or not.

 

[rr1213]

Okay, I already realize the obvious part; I was a Protestant, so I know that that is the underlying issue. I was just curious what it is about these doctrines themselves that makes them difficult to believe…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

Sorry, I did not mean my response to your post to come across like that.

I think that the doctrines are difficult to understand, at least to those of us who were not raised Catholic, because they are contary to what we see everyday in life. We live in a fallen world where even the greatest of the great saints among us still sin to some degree. So, even though we know that we are talking about a miraculous exception (Mary without original sin and/or remaining sinless), it is hard for us to get our feeble minds around the concept. At least it is for me.

 

[rr1213]

There is no mention of [Mary] dying, or living. So a Catholic is free to believe that she died prior to her assumption, or direct assumed into heaven without dying.

Not that anyone asked me , but I wish the Church had kept the same silence as to the immaculate conception instead of dogmatically defining the teaching. That removes any ability for a Catholic or potential Catholic to keep his own counsel on the subject.

 

[Alexius]

I think that the doctrines are difficult to understand, at least to those of us who were not raised Catholic, because they are contary to what we see everyday in life. We live in a fallen world where even the greatest of the great saints among us still sin to some degree. So, even though we know that we are talking about a miraculous exception (Mary without original sin and/or remaining sinless), it is hard for us to get our feeble minds around the concept. At least it is for me.

As you can see by some of my questions in this thread, I am still asking questions… ! Always pursue the Truth, for there you shall find God…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[rr1213]

The Mother of God = Adam and his original sin?

The Mother of God = Lucifer and 1/3 of the beings who rejected God?

---

That is stunning!

---

***Why you would compare the Mother of God to demons and the progenitor of the fallen nature of humans is beyond me. The Blessed Mother said “yes” to God in the Scriptures. You have no reason, based on what we learn about her in Scriptures, to imagine that she ever did anything other than say “yes” to Him. ***

The post I was referring to gave the examples of Adam and Eve and the angels as sinless beings. I don’t think those are good examples because we know for a fact that Adam and Eve both sinned and so did a significant number of the angels, including Lucifer. The post also gave as an example the saints in heaven. For a different reason, I don’t think that example works either because they have been completely sanctified if they are in heaven.